In regard to all these posts and
particularly perhaps the three engineering posts for which you ask, I think that when the posts are approved we should go to C.S.D. and ask them whether they can fill them for us, before deciding on a particular candidate. In this connection, you will have seen Establishment Branch Notice No. 40, which states that Mr. G.N. Loggin has been appointed Adviser on questions arising in connection with engineering personnel.
I have not seen any previous proposal about the need for a Custodian or of the appointment of Mr. A. Ritchie (paragraph 7 of Mr. Sedgwick's minute.
I should be grateful for your comments on the matter a stage further.
the above before taking
Miss Ruston
A bet d
22.3.45.
上 We spoke at length yesterday.
2.
(a) We agreed that the proposed Harbour S.0.1. should stand and be filled by Chairman
designate.to the new Harbour Trust.
(b) I agreed yesterday that I saw no reason why the Air Planner should not be an S.0.2. I explained the only reason the post had been nominated as S.0.1 was the fact that we had earmarked Wing Commander Max Oxford for this position. I am informed a Wing Commander's equivalent in the Army is Lieutenant Colonel. Mr. Paskin pointed out that it is the responsibility and the work which determines the rating of the post
not the individual who is to occupy it.
The S.0.3 mentioned in paragraph
5 (iv) of Mr.Sedgwick's minute is for Civil Engineering and Water Works. Mirams, the prospective candidate is really a Civil Engineer and just happens to have experience on air port reconstruction.
(c) I agree that at this stage an S.0.3. for Postal Planner is sufficient.
(1) I have not seen Cuthbertson's file for some time but I think we are committed to him in writing.
(h) S.0.3. Civil Engineer for Waterworks. Equivalent is Engineer P.W.D. on the scale £545 - £950 plus residential allowance.
(i) Equivalent post is Wireless
Engineer, General Post Office on a scale £500 £910 plus residential allowance. I have asked G.E.C. if they would be prepared to help by
the
6